The research services aggregated website; final decision making and moving forward (Wang and Mullen)

Brief update from Senate RGPEC in terms of OA Policy, other initiatives (Otto)

RU/RUL Copyright Update (Pilch)

Announcements and Miscellaneous/updates from sessions at ALA Seattle (all)

1) We welcomed Yingting Zhang, UMDNJ liaison to CSC. Yingting has been at UMDNJ since 1993, and she updated us about UMDNJ activities
involving open access. Yingting herself has been the NIH public access person for UMDNJ and is the Endnote contact person for the
UMDNJ New Brunswick campus. Some other items:

UMDNJ acquired a BioMedCentral subscription in 2008, but discontinued it after a year because faculty were not utilizing it.

Open access journals are made accessible to faculty and students.

There is no institutional repository, although they do maintain a database of publications by the SOM faculty on the Stratford campus.

UMDNJ librarians have been keeping up with Open Access and scholarly communication issues through reports from the Medical Library Association (MLA) and the National Network of Libraries of Medicine.

They have a close working relationship with the medical school.

1a) Targum articles and communication

There is concern about two articles published recently by the Targum, the student newspaper:

Libraries increase book digitization, Jan. 25 2013

New RUcore policy opens online repository (editorial), Jan. 29 2013

The articles are disseminating incorrect and misleading information. For example, the 1/29 editorial states that under the Open
Access policy "faculty and scholars will be required to share all their work in the University libraries' online repository called
RUCore" and describes RUCore as "a 24-hour private reading room" that students can use instead of reading books in the library. It
also gives the impression that President Barchi has already signed off on the Senate OA resolution.

We are concerned because the articles are available on the Internet, both on the Targum web site and elsewhere, and might be the
source of continuous errors about Rutgers' OA and other library policies. There are questions about who to refer student reporters
to, when they ask Harry or other library personnel for information, and also a question about how to respond. It is a tricky problem,
since we don't want to impinge on students' rights to a free press.

Laura will talk to Harry, to explore options, whether we should send a letter with corrections to the editorial or reach out to the
Targum in another way.

The website is meant to be an aggregated presence that will provide access to all RUL research services. We have presented the
mockups to the Web Board and the RUresearch team and received positive feedback. Wording has become an issue, and has been discussed
in other RUL meetings (Planning and Coordinating Committee, November). Data Management Services is now Research Data Management.
There is a question about how to linguistically present Research Services to the non-library university community, which has its own
ideas about what research services means. Research Support Services is one suggestion, but we don't think that communicates what we
do.

Minglu presented the outline for the Research Data Management webpage/landing page. This is our first demo page, and was very useful
in helping us explore what each landing page should look like and the information that should be presented.

Responding to questions about the platform for the web site, Joseph told us that we will be migrating to Drupal this spring. RUCore
will also have a new version and appearance soon. We hope that our content preparation can be timely integrated into the new library
website release. Joseph said there will be multiple linkages of our website, for example, "faculty services" and "for research".

We briefly discussed branding and visual identification systems. The University has rules on how different departments can use
Rutgers symbols and name.

We discussed the details of structure and look of the website homepage and landing page for each service:

Icons-should match the service, graphic at top.

Focus on library services available.

Keep text brief, answer basic questions.

Make page searchable, most people use Google to find items, so we need to think in terms of how people will be searching to these subjects.

Library does not have to be mentioned all the time, we need to present services as available for all of university, we don't want to give the impression that this is just for or about the library.

Mouseover texts for the main page icons will be useful.

Discussion about the major sections on the website's homepage:

We have seven major sections, with room for an eighth. Several suggestions were made, including compliance, ETD's, and citation
management systems. It was decided that Citation Management Tools would be added and the other topics would be treated within larger
sections.

The Senate OA resolution is still awaiting Barchi's signature; it is one of many outstanding resolutions and business items on his
desk. Jane is actively pursuing closure on this, requesting status updates from the Executive Committee every time it meets, and
seeking suggestions from RGPEC. We need to emphasize that by adopting this measure we are joining an elite group of universities
engaged with Open Access.

Research support Infrastructure charge to RGPEC: The Senate Committee has several subcommittees working on this because the charge is
so broad. Jane is on the Data and Information Sharing Subcommittee. Speakers to the committee so far have included Grace Agnew, Tibor
Purger and Rhonda Marker from RUL, as well as Silvia Muller and Peter Mattaliano from DoCS, Tom Richardson from the Office of
Research Alliances, and Don Smith and Charles Hedrick form OIT. Ryan may speak at the March meeting. Reports are due in April, but
that may change. (handout, Research Support Infrastructure Charge, S-1108)

4. Copyright Update, Janice

The U.S. Copyright Office is soliciting comments on amending Section 108 of the copyright law and on orphan works. Both issues have
significant implications for libraries and archives.

In the library, the digitization framework is being discussed as a way to create a workflow for digital projects. Insofar as the new
framework involves copyright decisions, this is not about creating stricter copyright requirements, but merely to make the process
better known and to help get projects moving more quickly. The Jazz Oral History project in Newark is one of the first big projects
we are pursuing under this type of framework. In general we are looking at any legal restrictions associated with project materials,
and operating within accepted national practices for digitization. Other major efforts include new copyright policies and forms for
IJS and SC/UA. This year Janice hopes to review the system for RUcore rights statements to make sure they are clear and that standard
statements are being used. Also RUL will begin to discuss the archiving of "born digital works" in the university. There is the
continuing task of addressing copyright law and practices with faculty and students, involving workshops and individual queries. The
new copyright website will clarify copyright issues involving research, scholarship, and teaching. There is a great demand for
service in this area.

5. Updates and Announcements

With the meeting running over and no pressing announcements on hand, there is nothing to report for this agenda item.